- ALAC - lists.icann.org

WELCOME to ALL NEW APPOINTEES and specially our new ALAC MEMBERS!!
by Vanda Scartezini Aug. 30, 2009

Aug. 30, 2009

Warm welcome to the new ALAC members! I wish them all a huge success and a high contribution to ALAC's development and I hope at the end of your term the ALSs have turn to more than 500 around the world!! Best wishes to all! Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464

1 0

Welcome to our New ALAC Nom Com appointees!!
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 30, 2009

Aug. 30, 2009

we have our new NomCom appointees from the Africa, Asia Pacific and Latin american & Caribbean regions see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28aug09-en.htm a Huge Welcome aboard to all of you I look forward to working with all of you in the ALAC and I'm sure I speak for everyone else in the Regional, ALS, and wider At-Large when I say we look forward to incorporating your expertise, views and energy into our policy development work and discussions over the next 2 years... Staff can we ensure they are joined to our lists and that an Announce message goes out ASAP -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) announcement text for ALAC NomCom appointments 2009-2011 is copied below... *<snip> ALAC* *James Seng* has been appointed as an At Large Advisory Committee member from Asia/Australia/Pacific. James will bring his significant expertise on IDN (internationalized domain names) to bear on At Large discussions, and can also share his experience of Internet issues in several Asian countries; including Malaysia, Singapore and China where he now resides. James is the CEO of Zodiac Holdings, a company focused on IDN gTLDs in Asia. James is also Chief Technology Officer of the Shanghai Synacast Media Tech. Co, a member of the Executive Committee of the Singapore Advance Research and Education Network, and a committee member of the Internet and New Media Committee of Media Development Authority of Singapore. Previously, James has been a partner in Thymos Capital LLP 2007-2008, and worked as Assistant Director, Next Generation Network, Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore from 2003-2006. James is or has been involved in numerous Internet-related groups and committees including the Asia Pacific IPv6 Task Force, Internet Engineering Task Force, ICANN's IDN Registry Implementation Committee, Domain Name Technical Committeeof the Singapore Network Information Center, Asia Pacific Internet Association. He also served as Co-chair of the IDN Working Group, Internet Engineering Task Force, 1999-2003 and Chair of the iDNS Working Group, Asia Pacific Networking Group, 1998-2000. James' educational background includes a Bachelor of Information Technology, Software Engineering, Australian National University, 1996-1999 *Carlton Samuels* has been appointed as an At Large Advisory Committee member from Latin America / Caribbean. Carlton brings significant Caribbean experience and knowledge, and also an ability to facilitate consensus-building with the Latin American Internet community from his work as LACRALO secretariat. Carlton works as a consultant and an adjunct lecturer at the Information Science Faculty of Humanities & Education in the University of the West Indies at Mona Kingston, Jamaica. He is a Jamaican and US national. Previously, Carlton has worked as CIO & University Director of IT, University of the West Indies, Managing Director, Mona Informatix, as a registrar for the .jm ccTLD and VP, Network Systems, Neal & Massy Corporation as a senior executive with responsibility for regional network and telecommunications business segment for the largest Caribbean-based multinational. Carlton's current and previous volunteer positions include being a foundation member of and the current secretariat for the Latin America and Caribbean Regional At-Large Advisory Organization (LACRALO), member of the advisory boards of Microsoft Partners in Learning and the Project Advisory Board of the Caribbean Universities Project for Integrated Distance Education (CUPIDE). Carlton has also been a member of the CARICOM ICT Task Force, a regional ICT leadership position charged with developing a cohesive ICT policy framework for Caribbean governments. Carlton's educational background includes a degree in Natural Sciences from The University of the West Indies, a postgraduate degree in management information systems from George Mason University, US, and a postgraduate diploma in corporate strategy from the Sloan School of Management at MIT. *Dave Kissoondoyal* has been appointed as an At Large Advisory Committee member from Africa. Dave will be an invaluable asset to the ALAC given his experience in Internet governance and the Internet Society, whose Mauritius chapter he founded. Dave is Director of Information Technology at Teleforma (Mauritius), Ltd - A US Upstream Company. Previously, Dave was Group Technical Director and Chief Technology Officer for the Bowman Group of Companies. Dave is a member of the Public Interest Registry .ORG Advisory Council, a member of the African Stakeholders Network (ASN) of the United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force and has been an Ambassador of the Internet Society to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Dave's other volunteer work includes acting at different times as Secretary, Treasurer and President (CEO) of Save the Children Mauritius. He also founded the Internet Society of Mauritius and is its president. Dave's education background includes a qualification in electronics from the University of Mauritius, in information systems management from the Mauritius Institute of Management / University of Surrey, United Kingdom, and in electronics from the City and Guilds of London Institute. He speaks English, French and Hindi. <end snip>

6 5

Re: [ALAC] Why is ICANN holding secret meetings with registrars/registries?
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Aug. 28, 2009

Aug. 28, 2009

Hello Here is a blog post that I found on the Tornoto meeting. It may be of interest: http://tldne.ws/2009/08/icann-blog-the-community-view-registryregistrar-reg… Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > At Large Summit working groups 1 and 4 made reference to these meetings: > > WG1: "For regional meetings, all members of Bylaw-recognized bodies from > that region should receive travel and expense support on the same basis and > to the same extent as at International Meetings." > > WG 4: "Opening up the periodic ICANN regional meetings to participants > concerned with the public interest from the region concerned." > > Suggest that a minimum is for all ICANN meetings to included on the meeting > calender, agenda's published, input and outcome documents made available. > If no transcripts, then detailed notes of what was discussed should be > provided as a default. > > When the agenda's published, all Bylaw-recognized bodies from the region be > given the opportunity to attend if the agenda is relevant to their issues. > If these are set as the basic operating principles, then whether At Large > should be represented could be more on a needs/case by case basis. I don't > think the community needs more meetings it must send representatives too. > Over three week's year is enough, and the relevant work should be > concentrated in the three main ICANN meetings. > > Adam > > > > > > At 5:50 PM +0200 8/27/09, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > >> There was a similar meeting some time ago in Rome, Italy for European >> registrars. Although it was not a "secret" meeting, it was mainly >> advertised to the target population, and not outside of it. >> >> From what I heard from participants, the content was about business >>> >> relations between ICANN and its registrars and exchange of best >> practices among them. There was no discussion about policy issues. >> >> I take your point though that it is rather inelegant to use you for >> information about hotels and not invite you to the event itself. Even if >> you would not be allowed to attend the meetings themselves, you could >> have at least talked to registrars about At-Large's concerns. >> >> We could suggest for future meetings to have a point on the agenda to >> address domain registrant issues, featuring an At-Large representative. >> >> Patrick >> >> >> >> Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 26/8/09 18:36: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> On Saturday it came to my attention that ICANN held a secret meeting for >>> registrars and registries in Toronto. >>> >>> Why do I claim it was secret? Because there was no advance notice of the >>> meeting on ICANN's website, and the results were published only after >>> the meeting was over. >>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-25aug09-en.htm >>> >>> Living in Toronto, I was actually consulted back in March about local >>> hotels; at the time I explicitly asked to be invited to observe. That's >>> how I know there was no advance notice of the meeting, I was routinely >>> checking after the hotel inquiry. And I certainly received no notice of >>> the meeting, let alone an invitation. >>> >>> Who knows how many other meetings like this have happened, without >>> notice before (or may be even after) they took place? >>> >>> Now... why is it that what At-Large does is always under the microscope, >>> our requests for funding for regional and outreach meetings denied, and >>> others are welcome to sit in on our proceedings, but the same rules >>> don't apply to contracted parties? This would have been a perfect >>> opportunity to co-host a NARALO meeting, with ICANN already having >>> booked favourable room rates etc. At very least, I (and others) should >>> have been offered the courtesy to attend as observers. I explicitly >>> recall at the Summit, that the registrar people who inserted themselves >>> into our working group dicussions were quiet explicit that their >>> meetings were as publicly accesible as ours. Apparently that claim was a >>> lie. >>> >>> I am extremely angry over this in a want-to-get-the-Ombudsman-involved >>> way; I request a response from ICANN staff and I am asking for ALAC's >>> support in this inquiry. As it is unlikely that At-Large staff were >>> aware of this meeting either, I am asking for its help in identifying >>> >> > the source of this clandestine activity. We are owed an explanation of >> >>> why some ICANN constituencies get to have secret, private regional >>> meetings but others do not get to have regional meetings -- private or >>> public -- at all. >>> >>> - Evan >>> >>> >> -- >> Patrick Vande Walle >> Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu >> Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu >> facebook: http://facebook.vande-walle.eu >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >

1 0

Letter to the Chair of the Board on Status of Liaison Statement on Consumer and Other Constituency Proposals
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 27, 2009

Aug. 27, 2009

To: Peter Dengate-Thrush Peter, You should by now have received the official notification by the Staff of ALAC’s strong support for the proposed GNSO Consumer Constituency; the ALAC voted by consensus to endorse the proposal. In this connection, I have the unhappy duty to inform you that it has come to our attention that the ALAC Board Liaison made statements in connection with the Board discussion about the proposed consumer constituency that were directly contrary to the view of the At-Large Community. It appears that she also made statements about other constituency proposals, many of which we have taken no settled view upon (CityTLD, IDNgTLD). If she did not make it clear that the ALAC and At-Large strongly support the Consumer Constituency proposal, she should have. Any adverse comments or questions that she raised were entirely personal in nature. To be frank, ALAC Liaisons to any part of ICANN have no business making personal statements without making clear that is all that they are; if Wendy failed to do in this case then she was acting inappropriately. All ALAC Liaisons are very clearly instructed to make it clear when they are making statements on behalf of At-Large, and when they are making personal statements. Our Liaisons (all of them) also don’t have any business making personal statements that they know are directly contrary to the formally stated positions of the community that they represent without making the conflict-of-interest situation crystal clear. For the avoidance of doubt, any statement made to the Board by the ALAC Board Liaison which is not clearly stated as “on behalf of At-Large”, is automatically a personal view only. I encourage you and/or your colleagues on the Board to enquire of me, or the Vice-Chairs and Rapporteur of the ALAC if you have any question about the nature of any statement made by our liaison. There is no possibility that Wendy could not have known of the support of the At-Large for the Consumer Constituency. At-Large has sought to recruit consumer organisations into the community for years now, and several internationally known consumer representatives and organisations are long-term At-Large Community members and leaders. In addition, leaders of the international consumer movement in At-Large are parties to the Constituency proposal as you know, and others in At-Large are working hard to recruit more consumer groups to join the constituency should the Board approve it. On a positive note, in preparation for the appointment of a Board Liaison for the upcoming year, At-Large began some months ago considerably upgrading the process by which the ALAC Board Liaison is chosen, and fleshed-out in considerable detail the obligations and requirements for eligibility for this important position. We ask for a statement from all candidates that they are able to meet the obligations, as part of our nominations process, and we recognise that there is nothing (so far) in our planned processes where we do anything resembling due diligence or even try to evaluate/judge how well the candidates meet the eligibility requirements (many of which are subjective in any case); We will shortly be apprising you of these via our At-Large Staff. Based on this experience this may need considerable review in the future but with the planned advent of voting At-Large elected Board Members I suspect the point becomes somewhat moot, but it is something to be considered as we flesh out that electoral process in the future. We believe these measures considerably increase the transparency and accountability of those who speak in our community’s name, and that unfortunate incidents such as the one that causes me to write to you today will be very effectively prevented. Moreover, I think you will find that the new processes and requirements are a considerable step forward in the development of processes that could be used by the At-Large Community to select voting Directors in the happy circumstance that the Board decides to approve At-Large appointing one or more Directors, as we believe that it should. Finally, please do forward this note on to the full Board, in advance of or at, this month's ICANN Board Meeting and discussions. (Digitally signed in the PDF copy attached to this transmission) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) *ALAC Chair 2007-2009* *26**th** August, 2009*

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN
by Adam Peake Aug. 26, 2009

Aug. 26, 2009

Perhaps we should ask Robin to amend the document to read: In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that some members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that in particular "the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction." Helpful? Thanks, Adam >A document entitled "Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation >in ICANN" has been distributed very widely in the last week or so. >An example is >http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/21/top-ten-myths-about-civil-society-par…. >According to that post, the documents originates with the NCUC. > >Myth 6 is about the ALAC and I believe is both inaccurate and >misleading. It reads: > >----------------- >Myth 6 > >"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society >drafted charter." >False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted >charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told >the ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted >charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC >said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that >"the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good >move in the right direction." >----------------- > >This implies that many ALAC members supported the NCUC proposal >(verbatim quote of above) and it implies that the ALAC said that the >de-linking of seats was a good thing. > >In fact, the statement that they were quoting >(http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html) >said: > >"Some members feel that although there are some problems with the >proposal, it generally addresses their concerns, and in particular, >the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good >move in the right direction. Problems notwithstanding, the proposal >should receive Board approval." > >"Some" is not "Many" and the original statement made it clear that >the statement about de-linking was made by these "some members" and >not the ALAC in general. > >I do not know what we can do to counter this widely distributed >inaccuracy, but I do not believe that we can say nothing. > >Alan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

2 2

At-Large Guide to gTLDs
by At-Large Staff Aug. 26, 2009

Aug. 26, 2009

Dear Members: As you may recall, there has been a long-standing publication development initiative slowly moving towards completion: the publication of the "At-Large Guide to gTLDs". This effort actually began even before I began working with ICANN. The last time this was reviewed by the community it was said that it would be revised, your comments included (they have been), the language made more accessible and brought up-to-date, and then the text in prospectively final form sent to all of you for review, in translated form. I have attached the English, French, and Spanish versions. If you could provide any final specific comments that you think should be reflected in the text, we could then incorporate those. Wwe would then create the publication-ready text for you, complete with some relevant graphics, so you could see the final-final text - and we could then publish it in time for the Seoul meeting. -- Regards, *ICANN At-Large Staff* Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Your attention is drawn to and Announcement re ACSO in Sydney from ICANN
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

Your attention is drawn to the following ICANN Announcement => Please log in and use this tool to give feedback on the ASCO meeting in Sydney and further the important discussions raised therein... http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25aug09-en.htm Staff can we ensure this also goes to the Announce List please... -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] And part 2
by Beau Brendler Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

The board rejected their power grab. That's gotta hurt. Wish they weren't using the tried-and-true methods totalitarian governments use to quash free speech, though, to make their case. Ironic. I got lots of other things I'd rather be doing, believe me. Good luck to the next NCUC/NCSG liaison. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Aug 25, 2009 10:51 AM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] And part 2 > >Beau Brendler wrote: >> Here's some more haranguing, including a public posting by the former chairman of the NCUC, Milton Mueller, which details his perceptions of my failings in the job of NCUC liaison. >> >> And we wonder why we are having trouble getting volunteers? >> >Some of the grievances of NCUC may be legitimate, but the depth of >bitterness, paranoia and personal attack shown in the exchange is >inexcusable. Even if they had a point it was lost amidst the, er, unique >style of debate. > >This a really unhelpful distraction. We have a massively complex gTLD >infrastructure coming up rapidly, registrar and registry practices to >monitor, intense pressure by the trademark lobby to inflict major >mission-creep, increased threats to Internet user security and privacy >.... and this crap. > >I find it unfortunate that the unprecedented level of civil society >mobilization recently undertaken by NCUC comes not a a result of any >policy-driven initiative, but rather as a result of an internal power >struggle. What a waste. > >- Evan

1 0

inter constituency meetings on IDN at the Seoul Meeting.
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

Hello CLO, I have earlier proposed that ALAC proposes a full day of meetings, organized as inter-constituency meetings, focused on IDN, to resolve pending issues and conclusively expedite the process of IDN TLD implementation. Though not submitted as an alac comment, the suggestion was sent as an introductory statement to the alac comments on the 3rd revision of the Draft Implementation Plan. "With the view to expeditiously complete the IDN related tasks, it is proposed that ICANN incorporates in its agenda for the Seoul meeting a full day of meetings to focus on IDNs, scheduled as inter‐constituency meetings attended by invited experts, staff and finance committees to resolve all pending issues related to IDN Policy and pave the way for implementation." http://forum.icann.org/lists/ft-implementation/pdfXrLMi2klCu.pdf As the schedule for the Seoul Meeting is drawn up, may I request that this proposal be passed on to other constituencies and also to the team that is working on the schedules? The IDN meetings could be organized as inter-constituency meetings on Wednesday, 28th October. In one unified session all constituencies could together review developments so far, and arrive at solutions for all pending issues - technical, cultural, political, financial and administrative- related to IDN implementation. (Other pressing business of different constituencies could be discussed in concurrent sessions) Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ALAC IDN Liaision.

1 1

And part 2
by Beau Brendler Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

Here's some more haranguing, including a public posting by the former chairman of the NCUC, Milton Mueller, which details his perceptions of my failings in the job of NCUC liaison. And we wonder why we are having trouble getting volunteers? -----Original Message----- >From: Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> >Sent: Aug 23, 2009 4:04 PM >To: 'Beau Brendler' <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Subject: RE: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison > >OK, Beau, >Once again you indicate that you are not interested in the charter issue, only in your little personal disputes. And if you think an allegedly insulting email qualifies for an Ombudsman complaint, and staff actions to manipulate the entire GNSO representational strucure don't, then I can write off your judgment pretty thoroughly anyway. See ya! > >Milton Mueller >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >------------------------------ >Internet Governance Project: >http://internetgovernance.org > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Beau Brendler [mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net] >> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 12:01 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Subject: Re: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> >> Not interested, thanks. Your chairman acted unacceptably and I'm >> pursuing recourse via the ombudsman and other means, and will be >> making the whole exchange public to the ALAC. I have nthong more to >> say to you or Robin, and if I hear any more allusions to some >> sort of >> alleged collusion with staff, or any other baseless attempt to smear >> my personal reputation, there will be consequences. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 22/08/2009, at 9:39 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: >> >> > OK looks like Robin is as pissed at you as you are at her. If you >> > can move beyond that (nothing worse than the kind of abuse we are >> > routinely subjected to by staff and ALAC), understand that >> the issue >> > is THE NCSG CHARTER, and once again I don't see any effort to >> > address the points I made about that below. >> > If this disagreement is about you and your personal constituency I >> > am not interested. If it's about the best way to organize >> the NCSG >> > I remain wiling to talk any time. >> > >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: Beau Brendler [beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net] >> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:49 PM >> > To: Milton L Mueller; 'Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive >> > Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion' >> > Cc: Avri Doria >> > Subject: RE: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> > >> > Catch up on your e-mail. I don't see anything ambiguous >> about the e- >> > mail from Robin I pasted right beneath this one. >> > >> > That the chairman of the NCUC, or soon to be former NCUC, or >> > whatever it is, chooses these words is troubling: >> > >> > "You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look >> forward to your >> > continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared >> to debunk >> > it every time." >> > >> > Are you people nuts? Would you appreciate, as a volunteer, being >> > told that? This statement was sent to several mailing lists >> without >> > my consent. Legally speaking, I don't take it lightly at all. >> > Misinformation campaign? Your chairman asked me why I resigned. >> > >> > On a personal, human level: Would it encourage you to read >> any more? >> > Or see your point of view? >> > >> > Maybe this sort of behavior is prompting some of the >> "demonization" >> > you refer to below. >> > >> > Yeah, Milton. Just tell everyone it was about non-performance. >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Robin Gross >> > Sent: Aug 21, 2009 4:11 PM >> > To: Beau Brendler >> > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users >> > Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , >> Avri Doria >> > Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> > >> > Just for the record: >> > >> > - Beau, you have NEVER voiced these concerns to ANYONE >> within the EC >> > at least (and possibly in the entire constituency) prior to this >> > resigation. >> > >> > >> > >> > - Beau, you have NEVER made any attempt to engage NCUC on ANY >> > discussion on your proposed Consumer Constituency (although >> you did >> > insist in May-June that NCUC travel to Yonkers at great >> > inconvenience to discuss with you, and when we agreed, you dropped >> > contact and cancelled the meeting unexpectedly). >> > >> > >> > >> > - Beau, you have NEVER - at least for the last year attended >> > Constituency Day at ICANN meetings OR posted ANYTHING to the >> > listserv OR made ANY public effort to "enlighten" the so-called >> > dominant NCUC group on ANY of the concerns you now have about our >> > "single issue" (although you mention several "single issues" not >> > just one so we aren't sure what our single is for you). >> > >> > You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward >> to your >> > continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared >> to debunk >> > it every time. >> > >> > Thank you, >> > Robin >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Milton L Mueller >> > Sent: Aug 21, 2009 6:27 PM >> > To: 'Beau Brendler' , "'Non-Commercial Users Constituency >> Executive >> > Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion'" >> > Cc: Avri Doria >> > Subject: RE: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> > >> > Beau, >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Beau Brendler [mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net] >> > >> > I sent a resignation letter to Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Robin Gross >> > and no one else. It did not go into detail. Robin chose to >> make that >> > letter public without my permission, which is a violation of my >> > privacy, not to mention bad etiquette. >> > >> > Robin's request to you contained the NCUC Exec Committee email >> > address in the header. Your email did not ask that it not be >> > forwarded or say that it was private. This is still a relatively >> > professional environment, and both ALAC and NCUC members have a >> > reasonable expectation to know what is going on and why. >> > >> > She asked for an explanation. I gave it. And I got a >> personal attack >> > in response that didn't deal with a single issue I raised >> > >> > There is absolutely nothing personal in my response. And my >> response >> > dealt with all the issues you raised, to the best of my ability >> > >> > Then I got a response accusing me of engaging in some sort of >> > disinformation campaign in collusion with Denise Michel. >> > >> > Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about here. >> > >> > I told you what I thought of that, and now I get some sort of >> > attempt at smoothing things over that quickly degenerates into A >> > PROFESSORIAL LECTURE WITH LOTS OF CAPS. >> > >> > Huh? >> > >> > Just who the hell do you think you are? Why would anyone want to >> > volunteer their time to become involved with you? >> > >> > Lots of people are currently getting involved with us; many >> have in >> > the past. It takes a long time to build a constituency with self- >> > generated resources, and frankly you ought to show more >> respect for >> > that if you intend to do it. I am really tired of this >> demonization >> > of NCUC, which seems to be occurring precisely because it is >> > successful. >> > >> > As for the consumer constituency, which deserves >> defending, here's >> > at my part in it: When I was employed by Consumers Union, I >> started >> > it. So Consumers Union was a part of it, and I got signoff on it >> > from our Washington policy office. It seemed like a good >> thing to do. >> > >> > Yes, but....once again, you fail to address the structural issue >> > about the role of constituencies in the NCSG. This is what the >> > controversy is about, Beau. You are just thinking about your own >> > place and not about the overall structure of the NCSG and >> what works >> > best for all groups. That is the reason there has been a fatal >> > disconnect between us. >> > >> > I have left CU, as has the person who signed off on it, and trying >> > to get CU to be a part of it again won't happen, because they are >> > focusing on health care, not telecommunications. There are >> consumer >> > organizations who have joined it, from Slovenia and Belgium and >> > Canada. >> > >> > There are just as many consumer organizations currently in >> NCUC. So >> > why do three organizations warrant a new constituency and a >> claim to >> > an equal share of all Council seats and Executive committee seats? >> > This is the issue, Beau. Why did you join forces with those >> > attempting to fragment and divide the NCSG and never give our >> > charter proposal the time of day? Why did you never offer to make >> > amendments to it that would make it acceptable? That's the >> only beef >> > I have with you and Cheryl. >> > >> > What do you think of the work of Knujon, whom I helped get >> involved >> > in ICANN? >> > >> > Knujon is a commercial brand protection firm, a hired gun for >> > corporations. Have you looked at their web site? Do you know what >> > they do? They get involved in ICANN (and the RIRs) to >> promote their >> > business. They apply for consulting contracts with ICANN. >> They made >> > fools of themselves at the last RIPE meeting by claiming, among >> > other things, that people who use their own language scripts in >> > Whois records (e.g., Korean, Japanese) ought to be forced to use >> > English because otherwise Knujon can't read their Whois records. A >> > bit parochial, wouldn't you say? >> > >> > Or ArtistsAgainst419? Or the work of Jart Armin? Have you reached >> > out to them? >> > >> > No, I haven't. They seem fine. And I could list 20 >> individuals that >> > I have drawn in that you haven't reached out to. What exactly is >> > your point? If these people want to join a new NCSG and form a >> > "security" constituency it's fine with me and everyone else. The >> > issue is the charter. >> > >> > Let's remain focused on the only important issue: the >> debate we are >> > having right now pertains to the structure of the NCSG and whether >> > new players will join an integrated SG in which everyone works >> > together to make collective decisions, or divide themselves into >> > segregated silos and then fight over the allocation of >> Council seats >> > and EC decisions. We favor the former. So does the vast >> majority of >> > CS groups. Stop pretending these are all zombies invoked by the >> > "NCUC Power Structure" and get serious about that issue. >> Then we can >> > have a reasonable dialogue. >> > Why is the existence of a consumer constituency threatening >> to you? >> > You should be welcoming it. >> > >> > No constituency is threatening to us if it is formed under >> the right >> > charter. All constituencies are threatening to _each other_ >> if they >> > form under the SIC-imposed charter. That is the point we have been >> > making - and you have been missing - for nearly a year now. >> > >> > You should be seeking alliance with these people, not >> singling them >> > out for ridicule. One of them, Breda Kutin of the Slovenian >> consumer >> > organization, is a colleague of mine, and knows more about >> consumer >> > advocacy than me or you (well, not you, of course). Find a >> > reasonable way to reach out to these people, Milton, and Mary, and >> > Brendan, and Robin. Don't insult them or call their >> personal ethics >> > into question when they disagree with you. Your credibility is at >> > stake otherwise. >> > >> > I have never even heard of these people so I am surprised to learn >> > that I am insulting them, ridiculing them and calling their >> personal >> > ethics into question. Care to retract? >> > >> > You well know, I didn't "demand" the NCUC meet in Yonkers. >> > >> > Who said you did? Not me. >> > >> > Third, I did spend a lot of time with you, Milton, and Brendan >> > Kuerbis (bought him lunch in Mexico, in fact, with my at-large >> > perdiem) and Mary, and other people in your group. >> > >> > I spent a lot of time talking to you and truly regret the >> breakdown >> > here. When we spoke you always seemed reasonable and open to >> > discussion. I haven't changed. >> > But clearly, things are going on in the background that are making >> > you hostile to us. And frankly, no, you didn't do much as >> liaison. I >> > understand what a frigging time sink this stuff is, so I >> don't hold >> > that against you, esp after losing your job. >> > >> -----Original Message----- >From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Sent: Aug 25, 2009 9:42 AM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN > >Maybe it's time for the ALAC to read this exchange that resulted when I resigned from the NCUC liaison position on Friday, in part over just this sort of behavior, which has been going on since the start of the Sydney meeting. This exchange was posted to a variety of lists without my initial consent, so I am violating no one's privacy by posting it here. I note, in particular, the following quote: > >"You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time." > >--------------------------- > From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >To: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> >Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" <ncu-exec(a)ipjustice.org>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> >Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >Date: Aug 21, 2009 4:13 PM > >Robin...please stop. You're making a fool of yourself. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Gross > Sent: Aug 21, 2009 4:11 PM > To: Beau Brendler > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria > Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison > > Just for the record: > > - Beau, you have NEVER voiced these concerns to ANYONE within the EC at least (and possibly in the entire constituency) prior to this resigation. > > > - Beau, you have NEVER made any attempt to engage NCUC on ANY discussion on your proposed Consumer Constituency (although you did insist in May-June that NCUC travel to Yonkers at great inconvenience to discuss with you, and when we agreed, you dropped contact and cancelled the meeting unexpectedly). > > > - Beau, you have NEVER - at least for the last year attended Constituency Day at ICANN meetings OR posted ANYTHING to the listserv OR made ANY public effort to "enlighten" the so-called dominant NCUC group on ANY of the concerns you now have about our "single issue" (although you mention several "single issues" not just one so we aren't sure what our single is for you). > > You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time. > > Thank you, > Robin > > > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> Robin: >> >> You make my points well. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Gross >> Sent: Aug 21, 2009 3:20 PM >> To: Beau Brendler >> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> >> Beau, >> >> Any time you would like to have substantive discussions on issues, you are welcome to participate. But the reality is, you have never once engaged with us on a substantive discussion as long as I have been involved in ICANN, despite our requests. >> >> You are free to engage in revisionist history now if you like, but those of us who have tried to engage you in substantive discussions along the way know a different story very well. >> >> Regards, >> Robin >> >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: >> >>> Sure. >>> I'm concerned with the way some vocal members of the NCUC are trying to represent themselves as being a unified voice of "civil society" (they aren't), and that "civil society" is in complete agreement with the NCUC on every point ("civil society" doesn't agree with itself on a whole range of things). >>> There are a number of people in ALAC who feel alienated by this approach, and it's counterproductive to what's supposed to be going on -- which is policy work, not internal politics and power-grabbing. The NCUC, and ALAC, for that matter, have spent far too much time over the past year babbling about the NCSG charter when they should have been working on policy. >>> Also, in my opinion, the NCUC is basically a one-issue constituency dominated by privacy rights and free speech voices. Those are incredibly important issues, but they are not the only ones. There are a number of members of the at-large (and the general public -- see http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/09/to-some-its-the.html) who believe, for instance, that WHOIS is a valuable tool for consumer recourse from fraud and abuse. I don't think you'd find a single member of at-large who "opposes" free speech or privacy rights, but you would find some who believe there should be a balanced or nuanced approach, especially in places like the United States, where consumers don't share the same protections they do in, say, Europe. Back a couple of years ago when I was trying to recruit consumer groups to join the ALAC (and to the NCUC, for that matter), I took the trouble to ask a couple of privacy rights organizations I knew, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and the World Privacy Forum, what they thought about the WHOIS issue. I was surprised at the nuanced response, which I circulated (with permission) to a couple of the ongoing WHOIS study groups at the time. Their outlook may have changed by now, I don't know and haven't asked. Have they joined the NCUC's one unified voice of civil society and consumers etc.? I haven't checked. >>> And I also think that what some vocal members of the NCUC have been saying about the consumer constituency is appalling -- certainly counterproductive and a missed opportunity. Their actions have convinced me that the NCUC is interested solely -- at the moment, anyway, until various matters are decided -- in consolidating its power, not building coalitions or working within the system to improve Internet policy or ICANN policy on behalf of users. >>> Ironically, I used to work for a consumer organization (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/, the site, eight years' worth of work, is still up) that was very hesitant to join any sort of coalition, for these sorts of reasons. When I was an employee of that organization, I often felt I had to hold back from voicing certain opinions or aligning myself with certain groups within the ICANN community. And I took a fair amount of browbeating from at least one member of the NCUC for that, though mercifully, I don't seem to be getting those e-mails anymore. Maybe that's because I'm no longer a marquee member of "civil society," and more of an average Joe consumer. >>> >>> Now, looking at the whole ICANN constituency and community enterprise as a whole, today, as a sort of free man, I can say: If I were to come in cold, and try to make up my mind, I would want no part of the NCUC. >>> >>> And I don't now, because I just don't like the way a number of members of your group are doing business. And that's why I'm resigning. >>> >>> Beau Brendler >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Robin Gross >>> Sent: Aug 21, 2009 2:19 PM >>> To: Beau Brendler >>> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria >>> Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >>> >>> Beau, >>> >>> Thanks for letting us know. Can you say why you are resigning? Thank you. >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: >>> >>>> Cheryl, Robin: >>>> >>>> Please consider this my immediate resignation from the ALAC liaison position to the NCUC. I leave it to Cheryl to inform the ALAC of my decision at a particularly opportune time, as my term is up by the next ICANN meeting. However, my decision has nothing to do with timing. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Beau Brendler >>>> > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >>Sent: Aug 25, 2009 6:52 AM >>To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN >> >>A document entitled "Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation >>in ICANN" has been distributed very widely in the last week or so. An >>example is >>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/21/top-ten-myths-about-civil-society-par…. >>According to that post, the documents originates with the NCUC. >> >>Myth 6 is about the ALAC and I believe is both inaccurate and >>misleading. It reads: >> >>----------------- >>Myth 6 >> >>"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society >>drafted charter." >>False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted >>charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the >>ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted >>charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC >>said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that >>"the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good >>move in the right direction." >>----------------- >> >>This implies that many ALAC members supported the NCUC proposal >>(verbatim quote of above) and it implies that the ALAC said that the >>de-linking of seats was a good thing. >> >>In fact, the statement that they were quoting >>(http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html) said: >> >>"Some members feel that although there are some problems with the >>proposal, it generally addresses their concerns, and in particular, >>the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good >>move in the right direction. Problems notwithstanding, the proposal >>should receive Board approval." >> >>"Some" is not "Many" and the original statement made it clear that >>the statement about de-linking was made by these "some members" and >>not the ALAC in general. >> >>I do not know what we can do to counter this widely distributed >>inaccuracy, but I do not believe that we can say nothing. >> >>Alan >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

2 1